A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 25th 07, 07:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,946
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV


This press release makes one wonder how hydrogen is superior to other
aviation fuels. Do conventional aviation fuels become too viscous in
the stratosphere's frigid -58 degree F ambient temperature?


-----------------------------------
The Boeing Company http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html
Boeing Tests HALE Hydrogen Propulsion System Using Ford-Developed
Engine

High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) aircraft (shown here in an
artist's rendering)
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071024b_pr.html
Click image to view Photo Release.

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 24, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], using a
Ford Motor Company-developed hydrogen engine, has successfully tested
the hydrogen propulsion system of its High Altitude Long Endurance
(HALE) unmanned aircraft.

"This test demonstrates the technical readiness of the hydrogen engine
system and confirms the capability breakthrough in flight endurance
and altitude that could be realized by a variety of military and
commercial customers," said Darryl Davis, vice president and general
manager, Boeing Advanced Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems.

During the test, the engine ran for nearly four days in a controlled
chamber at Aurora Flight Sciences in Manassas, Va., including a total
of three days that simulated conditions at 65,000 feet. The propulsion
system included a multi-stage turbocharged internal combustion engine
and its associated subsystems. The Ford engine earned better than
expected fuel economy while demonstrating complete airflow and torque
control across the engine's operating range.

"This simulated flight allows us to showcase the capabilities of
Ford's proprietary hydrogen engine technology and the durability of
our four-cylinder engines," said Gerhard Schmidt, vice president, Ford
Research and Advanced Engineering. "We are very pleased with the
results. The gasoline version of this same engine can be found in our
Ford Fusion and Escape Hybrid vehicles."

The Boeing HALE aircraft is designed to economically maintain
persistent presence over a specific ground location from stratospheric
altitudes, providing tremendous potential for surveillance and
communications applications. The test marked a key step toward proving
the essential technical elements are in place for full-scale
development.

"This test could help convince potential customers that
hydrogen-powered aircraft are viable in the near-term," said Boeing
Advanced Systems President George Muellner. "This is a substantial
step toward providing the persistent intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities our customers desire."

Boeing, as HALE's system designer and integrator, is working closely
with Aurora Flight Sciences and Ford to develop the aircraft's
propulsion system.

HALE is designed to stay aloft for more than seven days and carry
payloads weighing up to 2,000 pounds. Potential applications include
battlefield persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,
border observation, port security and telecommunications. The long
endurance autonomous aircraft will be a propeller-driven, lightweight
structure with a high-aspect-ratio-wing.
Ads
  #2  
Old October 26th 07, 04:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand. Hydrocarbons are
orders of magnitude more dense than LH2 and do not require special
containers or special purging of fuel lines to get rid of air, nitrogen
and water. LH2 will freeze all of the above and reacts violently with
FROX (frozen oxygen).

Hydrogen leaks burn clear and hot, too!

To purge LH2 lines, you first flush with dry nitrogen, followed by a
helium flush, to get rid of the nitrogen, then gaseous H2.

It not an inexpensive process, and widespread use would severely impact
the world supply of helium.
  #3  
Old October 26th 07, 07:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:47 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand.


Then one would expect the Boeing HALE to incorporate an extraordinary
lightweight tankage system, wouldn't one?


No.
  #4  
Old October 27th 07, 01:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,946
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:47 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand. Hydrocarbons are
orders of magnitude more dense than LH2 and do not require special
containers or special purging of fuel lines to get rid of air, nitrogen
and water. LH2 will freeze all of the above and reacts violently with
FROX (frozen oxygen).

Hydrogen leaks burn clear and hot, too!

To purge LH2 lines, you first flush with dry nitrogen, followed by a
helium flush, to get rid of the nitrogen, then gaseous H2.

It not an inexpensive process, and widespread use would severely impact
the world supply of helium.


If that's the case, what would be your guess as to why Boeing is
considering a hydrogen fueled HALE?

  #5  
Old October 27th 07, 02:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:47 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:


In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand. Hydrocarbons are
orders of magnitude more dense than LH2 and do not require special
containers or special purging of fuel lines to get rid of air, nitrogen
and water. LH2 will freeze all of the above and reacts violently with
FROX (frozen oxygen).

Hydrogen leaks burn clear and hot, too!

To purge LH2 lines, you first flush with dry nitrogen, followed by a
helium flush, to get rid of the nitrogen, then gaseous H2.

It not an inexpensive process, and widespread use would severely impact
the world supply of helium.


If that's the case, what would be your guess as to why Boeing is
considering a hydrogen fueled HALE?


A niche device with limited production where such things are of
minimal concern maybe?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #6  
Old October 27th 07, 02:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,946
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:15:17 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:47 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:


In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand. Hydrocarbons are
orders of magnitude more dense than LH2 and do not require special
containers or special purging of fuel lines to get rid of air, nitrogen
and water. LH2 will freeze all of the above and reacts violently with
FROX (frozen oxygen).

Hydrogen leaks burn clear and hot, too!

To purge LH2 lines, you first flush with dry nitrogen, followed by a
helium flush, to get rid of the nitrogen, then gaseous H2.

It not an inexpensive process, and widespread use would severely impact
the world supply of helium.


If that's the case, what would be your guess as to why Boeing is
considering a hydrogen fueled HALE?


A niche device with limited production where such things are of
minimal concern maybe?


With all due respect, are you saying that Boeing choose a hydrogen
fueled engine for their HALE, because they are unconcerned with its
complexity due to its possible limited production?
  #7  
Old October 27th 07, 03:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:15:17 GMT, wrote in
:


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:47 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:


In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand. Hydrocarbons are
orders of magnitude more dense than LH2 and do not require special
containers or special purging of fuel lines to get rid of air, nitrogen
and water. LH2 will freeze all of the above and reacts violently with
FROX (frozen oxygen).

Hydrogen leaks burn clear and hot, too!

To purge LH2 lines, you first flush with dry nitrogen, followed by a
helium flush, to get rid of the nitrogen, then gaseous H2.

It not an inexpensive process, and widespread use would severely impact
the world supply of helium.


If that's the case, what would be your guess as to why Boeing is
considering a hydrogen fueled HALE?


A niche device with limited production where such things are of
minimal concern maybe?


With all due respect, are you saying that Boeing choose a hydrogen
fueled engine for their HALE, because they are unconcerned with its
complexity due to its possible limited production?


Of course.

How many unmanned aircraft that stay aloft for seven days and fly in
the stratosphere do you think there is a market for?

They are building something to meet a unique specification, much like a
nuclear submarine or a space shuttle, and using technology that will
likely never see mass production.

Ever seen a nuclear bass boat or a hydrazine powered 172?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #8  
Old October 27th 07, 05:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Boeing Considering Ford Hydrogen Powered Engine For HALE UAV

In article ,
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:15:17 GMT,
wrote in
:


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:47 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

There's more energy available in a pound of liquid hydrogen than in a
pound of any conventional hydrocarbon like jet fuel. The LE (Long
Endurance) part of HALE is the basic design goal.

A pound of LH2 has about 2.6 times as much energy as a pound of
gasoline.

The temperature at 65k isn't significantly different from 50k - jet
fuel would work fine.


But when you weigh in with the tanking required to keep the stuff, the
net system energy (fuel + tank) gets out of hand. Hydrocarbons are
orders of magnitude more dense than LH2 and do not require special
containers or special purging of fuel lines to get rid of air, nitrogen
and water. LH2 will freeze all of the above and reacts violently with
FROX (frozen oxygen).

Hydrogen leaks burn clear and hot, too!

To purge LH2 lines, you first flush with dry nitrogen, followed by a
helium flush, to get rid of the nitrogen, then gaseous H2.

It not an inexpensive process, and widespread use would severely impact
the world supply of helium.

If that's the case, what would be your guess as to why Boeing is
considering a hydrogen fueled HALE?

A niche device with limited production where such things are of
minimal concern maybe?


With all due respect, are you saying that Boeing choose a hydrogen
fueled engine for their HALE, because they are unconcerned with its
complexity due to its possible limited production?


Of course.

How many unmanned aircraft that stay aloft for seven days and fly in
the stratosphere do you think there is a market for?

They are building something to meet a unique specification, much like a
nuclear submarine or a space shuttle, and using technology that will
likely never see mass production.

Ever seen a nuclear bass boat or a hydrazine powered 172?


Also, it is a research tool, which probably has a hefty R&D contract to
go along with it. If you offer enough money, engineers can make a pig
that flies.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Atomic Hydrogen Fuel [email protected] General Aviation 7 June 21st 06 12:02 PM
Powered gliders = powered aircraft for 91.205 Mark James Boyd Soaring 2 December 12th 04 04:28 AM
Advice on Ford V-8 Engine Thought Holger Stephan Home Built 3 February 20th 04 05:04 PM
Ford V-6 engine work Corky Scott Home Built 19 August 21st 03 12:04 PM
Diamond Aircraft on Hydrogen Fuel Cells Raul Ruiz Piloting 1 July 13th 03 11:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.